Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 5, 2006, 8:19 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Default

If these 2 lenses have been compared/discussed before, perhaps someone can point me in the direction of that forum. If not, has anyone experience or either or both? From the reviews I have seen there's not much between them in terms of sharpness. I'll probably be going for the 17-70 unless someone can convince me otherwise.
pjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 5, 2006, 10:17 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 229
Default

Here is a thread you might check out:



http://community.dcmag.co.uk/forums/.../ShowPost.aspx
Ctrack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2006, 10:10 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Trique Daddi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 282
Default

I have the Sigma 17-70 for my 20Dand am very happy with the sharpness. Attached is a portrait I took in the studio. I use it more as a walk around but had family here so I took them to the studio to experiment with the lens.I ahve had it for a couple of months now.

Good luck with your decison!

Trique Daddi
Attached Images
 
Trique Daddi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 3:29 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 52
Default

I got my 18-50 EX a few days ago and have been very happy so far. This lens is very sharp on my 20D.
Bladestorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 8:51 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Default

I shot a few with the Sigma 18-50 EX when I met a guy carrying it in the lake district. It's a good range to have and the extra 20mm probably won't be that useful.
  • The filter size of the 18-50 is 67mm vs 72mm on the other model -- so the EX would work out a bit cheaper. $20-40 cheaper per filter.
    [/*]
  • The 18-50 has a fixed aperture of 2.8 throught the zoom range which could come in really useful especially with portraits and shots in nature. The 17-70's max aperture range is 2.8-4.5.
    [/*]
  • EX is supposed to be Sigma's higher end quality glass.[/*]
Here is a link showing off the EX's performance compared with the kit lens and thr 50mm 1.8.
http://hem.bredband.net/b288577/sigma1850EX/

I also found a great comparison on pbase which claimed the EX to be the closer to the L glass out of the two. Unfortunately I can't find that link right now.

Personally I would go with the 18-50 EX. Good luck!

Alex
alexellisuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 6, 2006, 9:38 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Why not the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8?
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

-> At least from theses Imatests this newer entry seems to outperform both Sigma... :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 3:02 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Thanks for the replies so far. I've seen that the Canon 17-85 IS is coming down in price, I guess because of the competition. Is this worth a look? Is the IS feaure and the extra reach worth the extra cost? How much can the IS system stop down. I would be looking for something which could get down to f2.8 at least.
pjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 5:38 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

pjackson wrote:
Quote:
Thanks for the replies so far. I've seen that the Canon 17-85 IS is coming down in price, I guess because of the competition. Is this worth a look? Is the IS feaure and the extra reach worth the extra cost? How much can the IS system stop down. I would be looking for something which could get down to f2.8 at least.
You can go in circle like this all day - The constant f/2.8 lenses should be compared together like here: :idea:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=65

If you look at the 17-85 variable aperture's MTF number (although sharp enough) it's not as good as the 17-55 f/2.8 (and is reflected in the price) - So if you compare the later constant 17-55 f/2.8 to the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 -> The Tamron(or Sigma) is(are) really a bargain...
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...6_is/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm


Now to some folks IS is worth the extra cost - but to me (and I have many IS zooms already) I don't find not having IS is such a big deal...
-> You can always set your camera (no tripod required) down: The camera won't shake if you don't touch it and use the timer to fire the shutter - don't worry landscape won't move on you for seconds (if it moves then it's not for IS either) :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 7:18 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 60
Default

Does anyone know the focal ranges (mm), for the varoiusf-stops on the Sigma 17-70?
pjackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 9:02 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

pjackson wrote:
Quote:
Does anyone know the focal ranges (mm), for the varoiusf-stops on the Sigma 17-70?
They've tested here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...2845/index.htm

17mm f/2.8
24mm f/3.2
40mm f/4
70mm f4.5
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:02 PM.